By Peter Bodo, Marton Herczeg and Robert Nemeskeri

Once upon a time, people thought that nature had just four basic elements: earth, water, fire and air. But today’s science posits a more complex view, with more than 100 basic elements and thousands of compounds and chemicals. From the time you wake up in the morning, you’re surrounded by them: from chemical finishes on your nightstand like glues and paint, to anti-stain protectors and flame retardants on your pillow, which, due to their durability, have lasting effects on the environment. Morning routines involve a further wave of chemicals: cosmetics, toiletries and perfumes with synthetic fragrances, toothpaste, toothbrushes and mouthwashes containing substances with names unfamiliar to most people. With breakfast, we ingest the stuff in earnest: any food that has been preserved, coloured, scented or made from agricultural products raised with pesticides and fertilisers contains chemicals. The milk in your coffee can contain residues of growth hormones and antibiotics.

	A third furnace is installed at a petrol refinery in Burgas, Bulgaria. Photo: BTA

The chemical industry has created a world containing countless previously nonexisting substances, and in some cases people use them unwittingly, and hence, without any control. A new EU directive on the registration, evaluation and authorisation of chemicals — REACH for short — aims to put things back in order.

When Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring in 1962 exposed the hazards of the pesticide DDT she eloquently questioned humanity’s faith in technological progress, and helped to set the stage for the environmental movement. Since that time many chemicals have been subjected to rigorous regulation. DDT use is now restricted in most countries. But we need to ask whether this was enough.

In Europe manufacturers must routinely test new substances to see that they meet various criteria, and report the results to the authorities. However, most information obtained in this way remains in the domain of confidentiality. What is more, new standards do not apply to chemicals already on the market. Yet, when existing chemicals were recorded and catalogued more than 20 years ago, there were already over 100,000 of them in general use. There is very little information about proven or suspected environmental and public health impacts of the vast majority of chemicals that we use today.

And this is to say nothing of the countless ways chemicals can cause harm in combination with each other.

	A lightning strike starts a fire at a petrol refinery in Trzebinia, southern Poland. Photo: BTA

This system complies with neither the polluter-pays principle, since authorities bear the burden of proof, nor the precautionary principle, since when in doubt the existence of risk must be proven rather than the safety of the product.

A further problem is that current legislation discourages the innovation of new, safer substances because it’s easier and cheaper for industry to stick with the old chemicals that were grandfathered into the market.

The aims of the REACH directive, whose latest draft was presented in October of 2003, are to better protect human health and the environment from the hazards of chemicals, and to enhance the competitiveness of the EU chemicals industry. The new directive will replace about 40 existing directives once it comes into force.

REACH will close the knowledge gap by providing safety information about chemicals produced or imported in volumes higher than one tonne per year per manufacturer or importer. The burden of proof now will be on industry. The applicant must demonstrate that the chemical can be used safely, and how to do so. Every firm in the supply chain will be obliged to ensure the safety of the chemicals they handle. To the extent possible, animal testing will be minimised. Testing programmes involving animals that are required for certain high-volume substances need to be agreed with the responsible authorities through an evaluation procedure before experiments begin. This is to ensure that the studies are designed to produce scientifically valid, relevant data while avoiding duplication.

	Vessels pass on the Rhine in front of the chemical group Bayer in Leverkusen, Germany Photo: BTA

Innovation of safer substances will be encouraged under REACH through reporting exemptions for chemicals used in research and development (as opposed to those that enter mass production) and lower registration costs for new, safe substances. The directive will require industry to consider substitute substances in certain cases, which will help decision-makers make authorisations and restrictions. Industry will be responsible for assessing the safety of identified uses before production and marketing. Authorities will be able to focus on issues of serious concern.

The total cost of the implementation is expected to be between EUR 2.8 and 5.2 billion over the next 10 to 15 years, while Europe will reap EUR 50 billion worth of health benefits over a 30-year period, according to the Commission’s impact assessment. It is likely that some substances won’t even be submitted for registration because manufacturers will be deterred by the cost. The Commission estimates that this will be the case for 1-2 percent of substances currently on the market.

Non-governmental organisations generally support the idea of having better knowledge and control of chemicals. However, during the last couple of years of consultation, industry has complained that the directive will be too costly, discriminative, bad for its competitiveness, and especially burdensome for small and medium-size enterprises (SMEs).

Even the American Chemistry Council (ACC) has weighed in, launching lobbying activities in Europe. In May, Greg Lebedev, the president and CEO of ACC, boasted that he’d marshalled international press coverage against this “bad European idea.”

ACC gained the support of the Asia Pacific Economic Community, which raised questions about the international implications of the proposed regulation. “We arranged for multiple elements in our government — the Department of Commerce, the U.S. Trade Representative, the and the Department of State — to express the understandable reservations about this proposed rule and its trans- Atlantic implications,” Lebedev said at a chemical industry forum in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. “We are currently working with the EU’s newest members — the accession states — to help them understand the risks of this pending proposal. And, very recently, Secretary of State Colin Powell issued instructions to the US Embassy in Brussels to continue to raise US concerns about the global implications of this troubling EU initiative,” Lebedev explained.

NGOs from the new member states have a different position. A Hungarian coalition comprising the country office of Greenpeace, the Clean Air Action Group and the Alliance of Hungarian Nature Conservationists believes that REACH doesn’t go far enough. Over the past five years, the original proposal has been stripped of its flesh and only a skeleton remains, said Jorgo Iwasaki Riss of Greenpeace. Due in part to pressure from the chemical industry, the proposal’s bite has softened. For instance polymers such as PVC have been removed from the system and substances produced in volumes between from 1 and 10 tonnes would be subjected to fewer tests. The number of chemicals that would be seriously investigated has dropped from 30,000 to 10,000.

	CHEMICAL WARFARE: Workers at Bulgaria’s newly privatised Himko fertiliser factory have demanded reinstatment of state control. Photo: BTA

These concessions have lowered the cost of implementing the directive significantly. To this the Hungarian NGO coalition on REACH responds, “The short-term economic interests of the chemical industry cannot be prioritised over the health of millions of people and the environment.” The coalition calls for compulsory substitutions for dangerous chemicals when safer alternatives are available; to toughen up the testing requirements for low-volume substances and polymers; and to disallow companies from concealing chemical- related information on the basis that it’s proprietary information.

The chemical industry in Europe says the directive will threaten its global competitiveness and cost jobs. Nevertheless, trade unions in the United Kingdom, Germany, Denmark and Spain support the proposal to the extent that it improves workplace safety for those who handle chemicals. It is estimated that 300 million working days are lost in the EU annually due to working with chemicals. German trade unions claim that “the tactics of the German chemical industry with the REACH directive are endangering both the health of workers and the state of environment.” Spanish trade unions (Comisiones Obreras) submit that the directive will actually create jobs rather than take them away. They say that improved conditions for innovation will create new niches in the market for less hazardous chemicals.

Regardless of what the chemical industry wants and says, REACH will happen.

The chemical industry in the new member states centres on production of petrochemicals and polymers, fertilisers, fine chemicals and performance chemicals as well as rubber. The key downstream sub-sectors produce artificial fibres, detergents and paints. SMEs are especially active in the detergents and paints sub-sectors. These companies face difficult challenges with the introduction of REACH — as do SMEs in Western Europe — because the directive does not take company size into account, but only the gross amounts of chemicals produced or imported, and their threat on environment and health. And due to keen competition in the local markets in these sub-sectors, any added regulatory burden can threaten the viability of firms that lack the wherewithal to innovate.

The industry could well suffer job losses, as many firms have warned. Nevertheless, the chemical industry is rather capital intensive and its contribution to employment in the manufacturing sector is typically lower than its contribution to production. Furthermore, it may be that the directive will create such a demand for safer chemicals that these job losses will be offset by opportunities in the better-paid sphere of research and development.

Without question, steering the economy onto a more sustainable path will require sacrifices by businesses for the public good, our environment, our society and the greater economy.

“Regardless of what the chemical industry wants and says, REACH will happen,” said Catherine Day, director general of DG Environment, during this past June’s GreenWeek in Brussels. The remaining questions are when and how well it will serve the citizens and businesses of the European Union.

The authors of this article work in the REC’s Business and Environment Programme